NFL Crybabies

Does anyone else see it as bullshit that NFL players whine for millions of dollars for putting their bodies at risk and then sue for more when that risk comes to fruition?

Personally I wouldn't pay a dime to attend or celebrate any major sporting event at thinds are. I'm a dude so I still pay attention but even that continues to wane as these greedy fucks dismay me.

Stopped watching the Pro Baseball, Basketball and Football after the last round of strikes. I figured, if they weren't interested in playing unless they got more money, I wasn't interested in watching.

Does anyone else see it as bullshit that NFL players whine for millions of dollars for putting their bodies at risk and then sue for more when that risk comes to fruition?

Personally I wouldn't pay a dime to attend or celebrate any major sporting event at thinds are. I'm a dude so I still pay attention but even that continues to wane as these greedy fucks dismay me. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Does seem like a contradiction, doesn't it. I find it too expensive to go so I entertain myself by commenting on websites.

The NFL is the players. Without them, none of it happens. And, they get the smallest piece of the money pie and always have.....

I don't have any problem with them being compensated for knocking the shit out of and crippling each other in order to entertain idiots like you who then call them crybabies. I was pleased to see that federal judge reject the settlement. Given the amount of money made off these players by the owners and the league, it needs to be a lot more.

The NFL is the players. Without them, none of it happens. And, they get the smallest piece of the money pie and always have.....

I don't have any problem with them being compensated for knocking the shit out of and crippling each other in order to entertain idiots like you who then call them crybabies. I was pleased to see that federal judge reject the settlement. Given the amount of money made off these players by the owners and the league, it needs to be a lot more. Originally Posted by timpage

No sir, the NFL is the spectators and the advertisers. Get rid of any player, in fact ten thousand players, and there will still be five times more ready to replace them. The talent level might go down, but the competition would still exist.

They do not entertain me. I try, but usually the showboating and sideline antics put my nose in another show or a book.

My disdain for the whiny crybaby players in no way implies I condone the greed of the owners. There is too much money there, and sooner or later they will price themselves out of reason. At several points in history, these 'players' fought lions for their lives to entertain the populace. They should show some gratitude for the job.

Call me an idiot or imply I'm a racist (other thread) all you wish; your avatar has great tits. You and Bert are correct that posting here is probably a silly source of entertainment for all three of us.

Get rid of any player, in fact ten thousand players, and there will still be five times more ready to replace them. The talent level might go down, but the competition would still exist. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

might?

that might just be the understatement of the century.

might?

that might just be the understatement of the century. Originally Posted by JCM800

Why? The main reason any of these guys are so good is because they are able to dedicate 100% of their time to their task. That would still be the case. For every superstar Jim Nance labels 'special' there are hundreds, thousands, of undiscovered quality athletes.

Take golf for example. Tiger and Phil might be special. Maybe a couple others. There are literally millions of other golfers who could be nearly as good if they had the same time and resources dedicated to them as say, John Daly or Hunter Mahan.

Same is true of baseball; 99% of players never see the big leagues. But I suggest if you take a minor league game and put it in a major league park few spectators would notice the talent difference and even those that could would adjust if there was competitiveness.

The only reason I don't use the original sport of football as an example is that it is supposed to be a team sport where cohesiveness determines success as much or more than individual ability. I'd be all for the winning team taking home mad cash; it's the amount of guys pulling down big bucks just for showing up that I find disappointing.

No offense, but your argument is silly. The golf analogy especially. There are what....150 golfers on the PGA tour? The very best of the best...out of the tens of millions who play golf? Are you seriously advancing the proposition that the absence of Tiger Woods from any tournament doesn't affect revenue? Check the TV ratings for golf on the tournaments where Tiger is playing and the ones where he isn't playing.

Same holds true for professional football. The college game is another world completely. Entertaining? Yes. But, an exemplar of the best players in the world? Not even close? The difference in the speed and intensity of defensive pursuit in the NFL as opposed to college isn't even close.

The players in the NFL risk life and limb to pursue their dreams and provide you with entertainment every Sunday for six months out of the year. There's plenty of money to go around. Why not take care of them after they are crippled or brain-damaged as a result?

Why? The main reason any of these guys are so good is because they are able to dedicate 100% of their time to their task. That would still be the case. For every superstar Jim Nance labels 'special' there are hundreds, thousands, of undiscovered quality athletes.

Take golf for example. Tiger and Phil might be special. Maybe a couple others. There are literally millions of other golfers who could be nearly as good if they had the same time and resources dedicated to them as say, John Daly or Hunter Mahan. Good enough to impress the fat executive that will go out to see them.

Same is true of baseball; 99% of players never see the big leagues. But I suggest if you take a minor league game and put it in a major league park few spectators would notice the talent difference and even those that could would adjust if there was competitiveness.

The only reason I don't use the original sport of football as an example is that it is supposed to be a team sport where cohesiveness determines success as much or more than individual ability. I'd be all for the winning team taking home mad cash; it's the amount of guys pulling down big bucks just for showing up that I find disappointing. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

No offense, but your argument is silly. The golf analogy especially. There are what....150 golfers on the PGA tour? The very best of the best...out of the tens of millions who play golf? Are you seriously advancing the proposition that the absence of Tiger Woods from any tournament doesn't affect revenue? Check the TV ratings for golf on the tournaments where Tiger is playing and the ones where he isn't playing.

Same holds true for professional football. The college game is another world completely. Entertaining? Yes. But, an exemplar of the best players in the world? Not even close? The difference in the speed and intensity of defensive pursuit in the NFL as opposed to college isn't even close.

The players in the NFL risk life and limb to pursue their dreams and provide you with entertainment every Sunday for six months out of the year. There's plenty of money to go around. Why not take care of them after they are crippled or brain-damaged as a result? Originally Posted by timpage

No offense taken, I'm hoping the silliness is at least in part due to being against the norm.

I am not advancing that Tiger doesn't affect revenue; that would immediately dismiss reason. I identified him as a special talent, because he is the best, he can do things few contemplate, he's got personality, and, sadly, he's black where few have been black before (apologies to Calvin Peete and Jim Thorpe. Interesting, why isn't Beyonce complaining about Tiger still being virtually alone in that regard?). My point is more along the Bull Durham principle that, after the select few, there is but a fraction of a stoke difference that would be further mitigated with time and resources.

Same thing with college vs. the NFL. The athletes aren't as good, but there are hundreds of thousands of them, enough to supply all the NFL and more if they didn't have to study and dedicate time to other things. Why should one guy marginally better get millions while the others sell cars? And why does it have to be the best talent to be entertaining? People still go to Sandler movies and they've sucked for a solid decade.

Finally, the players in the NFL do not risk life and limb to entertain me, or you, they do it to compete and be the best. Had Jerry Jones built his stadium first I might agree (nice building Jerry, what do we do now?); he didn't. The game came, then the money, then the greed. Were there no money there'd still be boys beating the shit out of each other in a field. I don't like the owners either. But the original point was that it is bullshit to ask for more money due to the risk and then use American judicial resources (why we are in the political thread) to sue for more money when that risk becomes real.

Of course I think they should be cared for. But they should be cared for with resources set aside by all parties before the champagne, the limos, the broads and the dapper suits are considered.

And for any football player to claim he didn't know there was risk of serious, debilitating injury would be as unreasonable as me claiming Tiger doesn't increase revenue. Maybe if you go way back there were some mistreated guys, but they hung up their pads long ago.

I'm all for sport, competition must be nourished, but we pay too much for entertainment.

Don't they qualify for Obamacare?

Why? The main reason any of these guys are so good is because they are able to dedicate 100% of their time to their task. That would still be the case. For every superstar Jim Nance labels 'special' there are hundreds, thousands, of undiscovered quality athletes. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

if all it takes is dedicating 100% of your time and effort ..explain the difference between Heath Shuler & Peyton Manning? ....both put in the time, both were great college QB's, both were high draft picks, ...what happened with Shuler then?

But I suggest if you take a minor league game and put it in a major league park few spectators would notice the talent difference and even those that could would adjust if there was competitiveness. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

I don't think very many people are racing out to Yankee Stadium to spend shit-tons of cash to watch the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders play.

maybe what you're trying to say is that you're entertained by mediocrity.

if all it takes is dedicating 100% of your time and effort ..explain the difference between Heath Shuler & Peyton Manning? ....both put in the time, both were great college QB's, both were high draft picks, ...what happened with Shuler then?




I don't think very many people are racing out to Yankee Stadium to spend shit-tons of cash to watch the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders play.

maybe what you're trying to say is that you're entertained by mediocrity. Originally Posted by JCM800

Of course, I'm entertained by mediocrity, I pay for TW cable and I post in this forum. Facts already in evidence man.

Yankee stadium hasn't been filling up so much lately. And I'm suggesting that people walk there, or taxi/subway/bus to pay a reasonable amount a family of four could manage monthly, or maybe even a little less often as per their taste.

Again, there are special athletes. But a by-product of paying Payton $25 mill, or whatever, is paying a schlub like Schuler, George, or Demarcus Russell way too much.

I don't expect to have an affect here, but to be sure:time to dedicate isn't 'all it takes'. It is one of several reasons, I say a big one. Payton is actually a great example; his abilities are built, compared with other top QBs, on time invested in practice and study. If Marino, Favre, or even Jim Kelly had his work ethic, I can imagine them all being multiple Superbowl winners.

and not one word about our special forces who do much tougher work which has much more importance. Why don't some of your socialists recommend taking money from the rich athlete and giving it to the deserving soldier?

and not one word about our special forces who do much tougher work which has much more importance. Why don't some of your socialists recommend taking money from the rich athlete and giving it to the deserving soldier? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The NFL should pay money to disabled Special Forces personnel?

if it weren't for pro sports just think about how many 7 foot tall, 300 lb sanitation engineers we would have picking up our garbage